MnM Minutes CC 20110323

M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)

Return to MnM Minutes

Agenda

• Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16
• Over-looked Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation Item

Attendees

Kreisler, Savage, Beeler, Stechishin, Seppala, Pech, McKenzie

Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16

MInutes approved - Kreisler/Seppala unanimious

MISSED Core Principles Ballot Items - Reconciliation

Two items were missed in the final processing of Ballot Reconciliation for Core Principles.

Items 188 and 189 - Have a "B" comment grouping (meaning Beeler should have dealt with them). They were marked that way because they had no chapter designation and talked about "The model...". When reviewed them, we realized they were talking about the "Vocabulary Model" and marked them to the "Vocab Work Group", but failed to tell Vocab.

Item 188 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0

Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0

Voter Comment

The model should support cross-mapping terms that mean the same thing within a coding system and across coding systems.

Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"

We propose to include the following in 5.3.3 "The vocabulary model presented here is a high-level model reflecting only those relationships defined in this specification. The complete vocabulary model, developed in support of Common Terminology Service Release 2, and the HL7 Model Interchange Format (MIF) can be reviewed as part of the MIF Informative Document . <LINK this to the MIF document>"

To the voter - the complete model is much richer and includes both properties and relationships that allow the sorts of functionality that you cite.

Item 189 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0

Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0

Voter Comment

The model should support the ability to subset a group of concepts. For example, I have a concept of Specimen Type and a subordinate grouping of these that represent a specimen obtained from a patient (i.e. blood, urine liver tissue etc.) and genetic sample type extracted (i.e. RNA, DNA, mRNA, rDNA, GDNA, snRNA …).

Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"

As preceding

Management of CMETs - proposal from TSC (Austin)

Introductory Discussion Notes

Questions have been raised on management of identifiers - there is a staff function that could be available to support this.

Noted:

• that the IDs are easy to maintaqin, but that Name and Attribution-level are significant.

• istinction between managing CMET approvals (ballot) and their naming/responsibility assignment.

CMETS - Management Observations-

• Some need formal management, others are "stand-alone" (need a new naming standard for these) --
• Similarly - distinctions about where it is appropriate to enforce CMET use as opposed to not.
• Attribution levels -whether to continue to manage or not, if so which

Consensus Motion

That we should move CMET management - names, rules, etc. -into a central responsibility (staffed) with the "rules" around it to be developed by MnM and others involved in SAIF Implementation.

Motion approved - Stechishin/Kreisler 6-0-0, and Andy will coordinate the transition of current data to whomever is designated.

Further Discussion Notes

• If DOMAIN passes ten CMETs, and one fails to pass, what happens? Agreed they can be removed to allow remainder of package to pass. The status of the removed item when it comes up again in a new package is a challenge.

• Need new binding process in which we separate the approval of the model from the use of that model as a particular CMET (sterotype).

• • In this environment will a Work Group be able to ignore its responsibility for providing CMETs.

• There is a need to scan for current CMETs that have never been used and decide which we can "toast."

Review Action Items For MnM

Note the following list, and amend the list to assign selected items: